Multicenter, CT image-based anatomic assessment of patients with aortoiliac aneurysm undergoing endovascular repair with iliac branch devices.

OBJECTIVE: The Global Iliac Branch Study (NCT05607277) is an international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study of anatomic predictors of adverse iliac events (AIE) in aortoiliac aneurysms treated with iliac branch devices (IBDs). METHODS: Patients with pre- and post-IBD CT imaging were included. We measured arterial diameters, stenosis, calcification, bifurcation angles, and tortuosity indices using a standardized, validated protocol. A composite of ipsilateral AIE was defined, a priori, as occlusion, type I or III endoleak, device constriction, or clinical event requiring reintervention. Paired t-test compared tortuosity indices and splay angles pre- and post-treatment for all IBDs and by device material (stainless steel and nitinol). Two-sample t-test compared anatomical changes from pre- to post-treatment by device material. Logistic regression assessed associations between AIE and anatomic measurements. Analysis was performed by IBD. RESULTS: We analyzed 297 patients (286 males, 11 females) with 331 IBDs (227 stainless steel, 104 nitinol). Median clinical follow-up was 3.8 years. Iliac anatomy was significantly straightened with all IBD treatment, though stainless steel IBDs had a greater reduction in total iliac artery tortuosity index and aortic splay angle compared to nitinol IBDs (absolute reduction -.20 [-.22 to -.18] versus -.09 [-.12 to -.06], P<.0001 and -19.6° [-22.4° to -16.9°] versus -11.2° [-15.3° to -7.0°], P=.001, respectively). There were 54 AIEs in 44 IBDs in 42 patients (AIE in 13.3% of IBD systems), requiring 35 reinterventions (median time to event 41 days; median time to reintervention 153 days). There were 18 endoleaks, 29 occlusions, and five device constrictions. There were no strong associations between anatomic measurements and AIE overall, though internal iliac diameter was inversely associated with AIE in nitinol devices (nAIE,nitinol=8). CONCLUSIONS: Purpose-built iliac branch devices effectively treat aortoiliac disease, including that with tortuous anatomy, with a high patency rate (91.5%) and low reintervention rate (9.1%) at four years. Anatomic predictors of AIE are limited.

Image-based assessment of aortoiliac aneurysm anatomical characteristics in patients from the global iliac branch study.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular repair is the preferred treatment for aortoiliac aneurysm, with preservation of at least one internal iliac artery recommended. This study aimed to assess pre-endovascular repair anatomical characteristics of aortoiliac aneurysm in patients from the Global Iliac Branch Study (GIBS, NCT05607277) to enhance selection criteria for iliac branch devices (IBD) and improve long-term outcomes. METHODS: Pre-treatment CT scans of 297 GIBS patients undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair were analyzed. Measurements included total iliac artery length, common iliac artery length, tortuosity index, common iliac artery splay angle, internal iliac artery stenosis, calcification score, and diameters in the device's landing zone. Statistical tests assessed differences in anatomical measurements and IBD-mediated internal iliac artery preservation. RESULTS: Left total iliac artery length was shorter than right (6.7 mm, P = .0019); right common iliac artery less tortuous (P = .0145). Males exhibited greater tortuosity in the left total iliac artery (P = .0475) and larger diameter in left internal iliac artery's landing zone (P = .0453). Preservation was more common on right (158 unilateral, 34 bilateral) than left (105 unilateral, 34 bilateral). There were 192 right-sided and 139 left-sided IBDs, with 318 IBDs in males and 13 in females. CONCLUSION: This study provides comprehensive pre-treatment iliac anatomy analysis in patients undergoing endovascular repair with IBDs, highlighting differences between sides and sexes. These findings could refine patient selection for IBD placement, potentially enhancing outcomes in aortoiliac aneurysm treatment. However, the limited number of females in the study underscores the need for further research to generalize findings across genders.

European Multicentric Experience With Fenestrated-branched ENDOvascular Stent Grafting After Previous FAILed Infrarenal Aortic Repair: The EU-FBENDO-FAIL Registry.

OBJECTIVE: To report the mid-term outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F-BEVAR) following a failed previous endovascular aneurysm repair (pEVAR) or previous open aneurysm repair (pOAR). METHODS: Data from consecutive patients who underwent F-BEVAR for pEVAR or pOAR from 2006 to 2021 from 17 European vascular centers were analyzed. Endpoints included technical success, major adverse events, 30-day mortality, and 5-year estimates of survival, target vessel primary patency, freedom from reinterventions, type I/III endoleaks, and sac growth >5 mm. BACKGROUND: Treatment of a failed previous abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is a complex undertaking. F-BEVAR is becoming an increasingly attractive option, although comparative data are limited regarding associated risk factors, indications for treatment, and various outcomes. RESULTS: There were 526 patients included, 268 pOAR and 258 pEVAR. The median time from previous repair to F-BEVAR was 7 (interquartile range, 4-12) years, 5 (3-8) for pEVAR, and 10 (6-14) for pOAR, P <0.001. Predominant indication for treatment was type Ia endoleak for pEVAR and progression of the disease for pOAR. Technical success was 92.8%, pOAR (92.2%), and pEVAR (93.4%), P =0.58. The 30-day mortality was 6.5% overall, 6.7% for pOAR, and 6.2% for pEVAR, P =0.81. There were 1853 treated target vessels with 5-year estimates of primary patency of 94.4%, pEVAR (95.2%), and pOAR (94.4%), P =0.03. Five-year estimates for freedom from type I/III endoleaks were similar between groups; freedom from reintervention was lower for pEVAR (38.3%) than for pOAR (56.0%), P =0.004. The most common indication for reinterventions was for type I/III endoleaks (37.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Repair of a failed pEVAR or pOARis safe and feasible with comparable technical success and survival rates. While successful treatment can be achieved, significant rates of reintervention should be anticipated, particularly for issues related to instability of target vessels/bridging stents.